Stirring the Pot: are all calories equal
Options
Replies
-
jenluvsushi wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »
What THE ARTICLE is implying is that the processed food calories are more readily absorbed by the body so even though you consumed 100 calories of apple OR 100 calories of a twinkie, your body actually digested/used more of the twinkie than the harder to digest apple. You also burn more calories digesting whole/raw food than cooked food.
Sounds like the article is trying to bring back negative calorie foods. Foods that take more calories to digest then the amount of calories in the foods. OK
0 -
For weight loss, I believe a calorie is a calorie. It's a unit of energy, I've used this example many times: if I ate 300 calories of ice cream for breakfast, 300 calories of Ice cream for lunch and 300 calories of ice cream for dinner and ate nothing else at all, I'd lose weight because I'm only consuming 900 calories a day.
However, 900 calories of just ice cream a day is not sustainable. And a 900 calorie diet is pretty dangerous. I believe it is important to eat a variety of foods because that's what, imo, is probably the most satisfying. So when it comes to satisfaction and hunger, there are definitely foods that contain the same calories per serving but satisfy the body and hunger differently.0 -
I really have to wonder if the difference in the raw/cooked food is even statistically significant, let alone falling within/without the margin of error for estimating we all make counting calories to begin with. This article has been posted several times now, and I've thought the same thing every time I've seen it.
I've also thought that raw foodists are probably having a field day with it.
0 -
" If you eat your food raw, you will tend to lose weight. If you eat the same food cooked, you will tend to gain weight. Same calories, different outcome."
I stopped reading at that point as that is simply wrong and laughable.0 -
I'll agree. Calories are not equal. 100 cals from an apple isn't the same as 100 from a Twinkie. That's why eating cleaner is so important.
THIS is wrong. 100 cals from an apple IS the same as 100 cals from a Twinkie... It's the macronutrient and micronutrient breakdown that's different.0 -
In many ways I think it's a moot point. Because we can't necessarily pinpoint our exact calorie expenditure to a specific number, the T.E.F. becomes pretty negligible. It's a law of estimates and averages anyway, so worrying about whether or not your cooked carrots yield more usable calories than raw carrots probably means you're over thinking things. Just getting people to log what they eat is challenging enough as it is.
0 -
Iron_Feline wrote: »" If you eat your food raw, you will tend to lose weight. If you eat the same food cooked, you will tend to gain weight. Same calories, different outcome."
I stopped reading at that point as that is simply wrong and laughable.
Yeah by the way this thread is going there is no point to read the article. Maybe when I am bored and feeling something comical I will read it then.
0 -
0 -
-
mamapeach910 wrote: »I really have to wonder if the difference in the raw/cooked food is even statistically significant, let alone falling within/without the margin of error for estimating we all make counting calories to begin with. This article has been posted several times now, and I've thought the same thing every time I've seen it.
I've also thought that raw foodists are probably having a field day with it.
Agreed, I think people who really believe in this are overthinking things. The difference, if there is one, will not be statistically significant. Probably a handful of calories at most. A calorie is a calorie.0 -
jenluvsushi wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »
What THE ARTICLE is implying is that the processed food calories are more readily absorbed by the body so even though you consumed 100 calories of apple OR 100 calories of a twinkie, your body actually digested/used more of the twinkie than the harder to digest apple. You also burn more calories digesting whole/raw food than cooked food.
Even if this is true (which I'm not sure that it is), the difference between energy burned digesting raw and cooked foods is so minuscule that the calories are negligible. I'm not going to eat only raw foods in the day just so I could burn a hypothetical 40 more calories, or whatever.0 -
Iron_Feline wrote: »" If you eat your food raw, you will tend to lose weight. If you eat the same food cooked, you will tend to gain weight. Same calories, different outcome."
I stopped reading at that point as that is simply wrong and laughable.
Yeah... I was a raw foods vegan for a while. I didn't lose weight. I felt great, eating that much produce feels terrific. But, I ate a lot of raw nuts and avocados too.
0 -
FDA allows a margin of error of 20% on labels by food manufacturers.0
-
For weight loss, I believe a calorie is a calorie. It's a unit of energy, I've used this example many times: if I ate 300 calories of ice cream for breakfast, 300 calories of Ice cream for lunch and 300 calories of ice cream for dinner and ate nothing else at all, I'd lose weight because I'm only consuming 900 calories a day.
meh, the quality of the calorie/unit of energy matters. Let's say, solar power vs coal. You'd go with solar power right? Why? It's all energy!0 -
I skimmed the article and is treading pretty well worn ground. But I love the idea of a pole-dancing british scientist.0
-
Are all inches equal?
How about yard sticks?
does 1 centimeter = 1 centimeter?
100 calories from an apple are equal to 100 calories from a twinkie.
the NUTRITION is not identical.
But the calories are the same because a calorie is simply a unit of measurement, the measurement of the amount of heat you need to raise the temp of a kg of water by one celsius degree
This.. and in because I am sure I will have to lock this thread as usual.
0 -
I think the title of the thread throws off what the article is really saying. It is not arguing that there exists inequality among calories. It is stating that just because you ingest 100 calories of some food, it doesn't mean that you digest all 100 calories. The availability of those calories for digestion and consumption by your body's cells vary from food to food.0
-
hollydubs85 wrote: »jenluvsushi wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »
What THE ARTICLE is implying is that the processed food calories are more readily absorbed by the body so even though you consumed 100 calories of apple OR 100 calories of a twinkie, your body actually digested/used more of the twinkie than the harder to digest apple. You also burn more calories digesting whole/raw food than cooked food.
Even if this is true (which I'm not sure that it is), the difference between energy burned digesting raw and cooked foods is so minuscule that the calories are negligible. I'm not going to eat only raw foods in the day just so I could burn a hypothetical 40 more calories, or whatever.
I agree...although there is a skinny little hamster sitting in a science lab that might disagree. LOL! As a side note-I wonder if they take into consideration that the difference in the calories burned in digestion for a rodent might be significantly different in a human? It's basically bringing back the "negative calorie" food debate. Still an interesting article either way.0 -
Burt_Huttz wrote: »I skimmed the article and is treading pretty well worn ground. But I love the idea of a pole-dancing british scientist.
Glad it's not just me.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions